[edNorth]

"Ed, How about you try contributing information without denigrating anyone in the process? It really isn't that difficult."

I am not contributing, merely correcting statement with reasons and facts.

Apologies, I aim have fewer (other) errors than the german, welsh or american, but then these will be research or writing ones, because not finding the correct document or reading any wrong - not errors that are based on rumour, popularity, lazyness or later time 1950/60s fiction. Sales figures for my work do not matter anymore, its gone well beyond size that anyone cares buy or read in one go (at least). Debugging (lists) will be done in V2.0, as to update V1.0 (to save printing paper and your investment go to waste-paper).

That said, I have gone very far to uncover un-interesting facts (truths), not merely re-cycling fighter this and fighter that, and already way past all mainstream docs, HW 5, and well into NARA, NASM and BARCH. Examples are 14-15th Stkz. for V-nummer aircraft carrying Jumo 004s, BMWs, Walters, brake parachutes, towing gliders, wire launch, MS/T, torpedos, X-4s, degaussing, static ones even and rejected. Steinways are also covered, as is why Ju 88 was as it was (and Ju 85 details in relation to Ju 88), and wind tunnel model data (sizes), why its design criteria was as it was, other test a/c than V-numbered are also detail listed and what they did, where and when. All W.Nr. batches and blocks are covered, and many individual conversions, but still yet finding more. Totals actually built and breakdown will also be stated.

But I do not name any indiviuals. All my writing will include blatant critical statements (I have made contributions that the author asking has blatanty ignored but thank others here for their contibution, even if its wrong).
But anyone can see I do not mention american (forgot him) but insignifcant omission (one German has slaughtered his works publically so any one knows). Nick, is not welch, is he? He is excused if be that, and I presume his writings are better today. Nuff said. -ed.

deZeng comment, two (or more) do have different views (perspected), but how do you define it in the eyes of one knowing (but not admitting) or them not knowing why, but accepting older writings as Gospel?

But it does not help the Ju 88 in any way.